On Clooney. On Jackman. On heroes not playing heroes. On how much money is enough. On fans.
Different people like George Clooney for different reasons. My affection for the actor comes from the fact that, at least in terms of his career, he has his head screwed on straight. After his TV-show earnings and the truckload of dollars he got for playing the caped crusader in Batman & Robin, he declared that money was no longer the driving force in his choice of films – and he has lived up to his word. Just look at the projects he’s been in since then. There have been blockbusters, of course, like The Perfect Storm and the Ocean’s Eleven movies. But Clooney, more often, has been seen in projects that have challenged him as an actor, projects that have teamed him with quality filmmakers, projects like The Thin Red Line and Three Kings and O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Solaris and Syriana and The American and The Descendants. Some have worked, some haven’t, but Clooney has always worked in them. In him, we see an actor who isn’t afraid to be an actor. He isn’t afraid of letting the grey show. He isn’t afraid to bomb. He likes his work and it shows.
You cannot imagine too many other actors – big-name actors, world-famous stars – do what Clooney does in Alfonso Cuarón’s outer-space saga Gravity, where he plays second fiddle to the superb special effects and Sandra Bullock, in that order. (The point isn’t that he still stands to make more money from this film than most of us will see in a lifetime. The point is that he was okay being off screen for large stretches and handing over the reins to the heroine, modestly calling himself “just a bus driver.”) A few words about the film itself, which I first thought was Cast Away set in space, with a heroine (instead of a hero) having to make her peace with a strange environment (with no one, mostly, to talk to) and make her way back home. But gradually, I began to see the title as referring to the “gravity” of Bullock’s situation, not just because she’s stranded in space but because she’s been crippled by a tragedy back home and needs to learn to, well, walk again.
The film seemed to me the world’s most expensive therapy session. Bullock’s depression is not explicitly mentioned, but we recognise the symptoms when she’s found balled up in the foetal position and when she talks about driving around with the radio on, not wanting to think about anything. She’s numb, she’s cut off from everyone else (the film literalises this), she’s spinning in a vacuum (again, the film literalises this), and she needs to be grounded – she needs to learn to stand upright again. And Clooney is her shrink. He uses therapeutic lingo like “let go” and he talks her through a really rough patch. At least, that’s how the film played out for me – and it’s amazing to see Clooney take on a role that, in a therapy-intense drama like Ordinary People, would have automatically been a “supporting part.” But as the cliché goes, there are no small parts, only small actors – and Clooney, over the years (and despite his limitations as a performer), has proved that he is among the biggest of actors, the kind who cares not about screen time or close-ups or being upstaged, but about the quality of the script and the director and the excitement of being part of something that could be a game-changer.
In a smaller way, Hugh Jackman does something similar in Prisoners. This, too, is a “silent movie,” if not literally then in its opting for quietness over noise. There could have been a lot of sound and fury in this hunt-for-missing-children thriller, but the material only sounds like a thriller – it’s really a drama, and in the most general sense it is about how you can be ready for hurricanes and floods and every disaster imaginable but life will still find a curve ball to throw at you (which is something that could be said about Gravity too). Except for stray experiments like The Fountain, Jackman doesn’t quite have the body of “different” work that Clooney has – so his taking up something like Prisoners is possibly even more of a risk. What will Wolverine fans make of this arty narrative that cuts away from scenes just as they seem to be building towards a meaty finish? The thought doesn’t seem to have crossed his mind.
If you want to be uncharitable, you could say that this is Jackman’s Oscar-bait effort, and while this may be true, it doesn’t change the fact that this big international star is in this really small movie about a dark subject that not many from his core fan-group are likely to want to see. That’s the excuse we usually hear from our big-name actors whenever they are asked why they don’t do something different, something smaller in scale, why they don’t act their age. And we’ll be told that they have to cater to their fans, who expect certain things from them, and then they’ll bring in market economics to justify why these films aren’t possible. But why not take a pay cut or a back-end deal that eases the budget? Why not sneak in a film like this between the big films? Why not play a juicy supporting part in someone else’s film? Once you’ve made your money, once you’ve made those investments, why still treat acting as a profession and not as art?
I was talking about this with a filmmaker, and he said that these fears aren’t completely unjustified. He took the example of Kuselan, where Rajinikanth was seen in a guest appearance. But despite the actor (and the people behind the film) making this amply clear, the film was sold – down the chain that involves distributors and the people who buy the film from these distributors and the people that they, in turn, sell the movie to – as a “Rajinikanth movie,” which meant that its selling price went through the roof. (Every distributor, after all, wants to make a profit. Why would he sell a film as “one where Rajinikanth is in just a guest role” when he can sell it for more as a Rajinikanth movie?) The film was released. The fans felt cheated. The film flopped. And this, the filmmaker I spoke to said, is why our actors don’t take too many risks after they become big, whereas Hollywood actors don’t have this problem because the studios take care of distribution. Apparently, our stars are grounded by stronger forces of gravitation.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2013 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Shankar
October 18, 2013
Baddy, I know you don’t quite agree, but I feel everything you described about Clooney in your first paragraph applies to DiCaprio as well. Here is a guy who could keep minting millions (again, just as Clooney, it’s not that he isn’t) by playing a romantic hero but choose to keep trying varied roles. Just saying….
Coming to Gravity, besides all the subtext (which I found a bit like spoon feeding) and the special effects (which were awesome….also I believe the opening sequence is a continuous 17 minute one take shot, an amazing piece of planning and execution by Cuaron), there were several scenes that were amusing. A lot of it felt like kaathile poo. At times, I felt like both Bullock and Clooney were on the footboard of a PTC bus, the way they were hopping and latching on to the spacecrafts. The re-entry sequence was another one where you had to tread into the theater as in a Rajini film (you know as was commonly said, the leave your brains behind…and such).
Again, these are minor nitpicks compared to the visual grandeur of the overall film. I was a bit underwhelmed though…
LikeLike
chhotesaab
October 18, 2013
I’m sure a lot of comments to this nature will come in but I think Kamal Haasan has done the balancing act between commercial and independent small budget cinema fairly well, and Aamir Khan is doing it well too. Obviously, We are talking only of really big stars. Ranbir Kapoor seems like he might do it but we’ll see …….
LikeLike
Ankur
October 18, 2013
My absolute favourite movie starring Clooney is Michael Clayton. Really under-rated flick.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
October 18, 2013
Gravity is a visual treat and a masterpiece. Haven’t seen a better film in a long time.
LikeLike
Aparna
October 18, 2013
Great piece. I, for one, was planning to watch Gravity just for Clooney. (I like him for diff reasons – I’ll sound like my daughter once did about J. Beiber if I list them here – but let’s just say I think he’s a dish?)
LikeLike
Shuba Desikan
October 18, 2013
Loved the closing line… “stars grounded by stronger forces of gravitation…”
Just one gravity-defying speculation, not directly related to the genre you speak about – If someone would convince Rajanikanth to do a film like Cheeni Kum or Kamal Haasan to do an underplayed “Mudhal Mariyaadhai” type story…! Wow! and I am sure it would do well too…
LikeLike
GoodOldDays
October 18, 2013
“I can tell you that George Clooney is my LEAST favorite person. He’s this really charming guy who pretends he’s your best friend.” 🙂
LikeLike
Anuja
October 18, 2013
I agree with Shankar. Leo could have opted to play the pretty boy in romcoms and customized blockbusters but he seems determined to steer clear of cinematic sewage and is working towards putting together a great body of work. Catch Me If You Can, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, Django Unchained, The Departed, Shutter Island etc. etc. are just some of the films that come to mind regarding his ability to nail tricky characters. It almost makes you want to forgive him for being a compulsive modelizer 🙂
As for our desi stars, they are so obsessed with being a part of the 100 crore club that we can forget about them treating films as art. Having said that I think in the South, Dhanush does a decent job of squeezing in lil gems between his blockbusters.
LikeLike
Vishnu
October 19, 2013
I think Saif Ali Khan is at least trying in Bollywood by mixing the “mass” movies with a few pet projects like Go Goa Gone, Being Cyrus, etc. Ranbir did during his early days. But I don’t see anyone trying something like this in Tamil.
LikeLike
Madan
October 19, 2013
I guess it depends on which actors we are talking about. AB has taken lots of risks throughout his career (I would argue that even the Botany professor role in Chupke Chupke was a risk). Kamal has already been mentioned. Even SRK took a risk in Chak De, playing middle aged hockey coach to a bunch of low profile actresses in a plot-oriented film without the usual Bollywood masala elements for the most part. At the other end of the spectrum, Arnie and Stallone have remained risk averse and allowed their superstar aura to gently fade into (relative) oblivion.
Maybe what this means is Rajini is about as interested in where his acting takes him to artistically as Arnie or Stallone (at best). I know what I said could potentially trigger a nuclear explosion on this thread 😀 but bear in mind that I have watched and liked his acting in films like Arilunthu Aruvathu Varai, Bhuvana Kathirunthal, Puthu Kavithai, etc. What he has been doing for the last 20 or so years is a far cry from those films where he was prepared to play strong characters and convey normal, everyday emotions without excessive larger than life amplification.
LikeLike
Lakshmi
October 19, 2013
I loved Clooney in Oh Brother where art thou ! Picked up one more with Tarantino..an old one, from Dusk till Dawn to watch
LikeLike
RAjesh
October 19, 2013
I wish VERY VERY SOON one day Surya / Karthi joins that list. They have enough money to survive. Surya shouldn’t go behind money for the sake of running Agaram Foundation. He should not mix both. He should do both good films (more) and commercial films (less)
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
October 19, 2013
Ost of the Indian actors don’t experiment, especially the Tamil and Telugu ones. They are all businessmen, not artists. And what do say about the Indian audience who patronise shit like chennai express.
LikeLike
brangan
October 19, 2013
Shankar/ chhotesaab/ Anuja: Nope, I don’t think Kamal or DiCaprio or Dhanush come close. They’re still at the “centre” of all their films. This column isn’t just about making risky choices, but about the willingness to play second fiddle and such things. Among the huge stars, only Brad Pitt comes close.
Ankur: Underrated? I thought the film got a lot of love…
GoodOldDays: Hahahaha!
Lakshmi: He’s pretty good in all his films, but “Out of Sight” is a particular favourite…
LikeLike
Ramit
October 19, 2013
Do we get addicted by the love of our loved ones that we just can’t live without them once they are gone? So much so that in order to live, we go beyond the boundaries to get our loved ones back, even if we’re just getting their shadows. Does that reflect hollowness or unidimensionality of our personality or does that reflect our tremendous love? Is life really confined by the circle of our dear ones? Is there nothing else? If there is, does that mean we let go of our beloveds? Shouldn’t one go beyond one’s best to reach out to somebody whom we so admire? But does that mean we shun humanity in the process? But can there really be a boundary, even if of huamanity, if we want to protect, say, our child? But if humanity is not a boundary, then what would we nourish our child with after we’ve saved him/her from the danger? Won’t our condonation of violence get reflected in our subconscious teachings to the child? Would we be happy seeing the unkind eyes of our child? So what does one do, just sit back and wait for the police to complete the investigation? Maybe yes. However troubling it might be, the fact is we can hardly do anything if our child is lost. We would have to rely on the investigating agencies only. At max, we can arrange funds or search the most neat photograph or maybe pretend making sense of the situation. But that’s all. We have lost our closed one. We’ve to pocket it. We have to live with this. We’ve to try to make sense of the world without the strings.
Movies, that are full-fledged case studies on a single topic, are very engaging to watch. So I really liked Prisoners.
Btw, talk about Jackman’s choices. He’s Micromax’s ambassador now!
LikeLike
chhote saab
October 19, 2013
“Nope, I don’t think Kamal or DiCaprio or Dhanush come close. They’re still at the “centre” of all their films. This column isn’t just about making risky choices, but about the willingness to play second fiddle and such things. Among the huge stars, only Brad Pitt comes close.”
Yes, you are absolutely right. I overlooked that point of your write up completely and now that you mentioned it, yes that’s true. Kamal Haasan, I think, never does anything which is not centred around him, same for Aamir (though Mumbai Diaries by Kiran Rao did have him as one of the many important characters) or for that matter any other Indian superstar. But IMO, Brad Pitt not only comes close but is on par with George Clooney as far his roles and movie selections go.
LikeLike
MANK
October 20, 2013
I don’t think the main point is whether or not the lead actors are willing to play supporting roles but rather we want to see them in those type of roles.. Honestly do we want to see Rajnikanth or Kamalahaasan doing something like clooney does in Gravity.Also their star wattage and fan worship we have in our country is more than that of any of our international stars can ever hope to enjoy. Even though we do refer to clooney ,Depp,Downey or Pitt etc as stars, many of them are character actors who happen to star in some of highly successful films and hence their stardom compared with Rajni or the Khans whose films end up being successful just because they star in them. So we need to consider this dichotomy when we discuss a subject like this.
LikeLike
Pallavi Bhat (@palvib)
October 20, 2013
Your last paragraph was a good point. Thanks for this information. But Rajnikanth is something else no ?
There is Shahrukh Khan in Bhootnath and Hey Ram. And they didn’t do very badly I thought.
But my complaint with you this time is about why focus on “George Clooney playing second fiddle” than how great it is to have a multi billion dollar project
with a female lead ? But then, its too feministic approach eh ? Well, well.
I have written something I think should be written by ‘someone’ (not me) for that much needed declaration. You may be interested,
http://leavz.blogspot.in/2013/10/do-you-know-we-are-in-golden-age-ii-of.html
LikeLike
Anita
October 21, 2013
On a tangent – Sandra Bullock. Airbrushed. Big time. Agree?
LikeLike
Nanda Kishore
October 21, 2013
Add Good Night and Good Luck, Burn After Reading… speaking of that last film, Brad Pitt’s part in that film is a role you can hardly get a star to play in the bollywood context. Tom Cruise is more in the bollywood / Indian mould, but even he did something in Tropic Thunder that I can’t imagine many Hindi / Tamil / Telugu stars doing.
LikeLike
brangan
October 22, 2013
chhote saab: Oddly enough, Akshay Kumar has taken non-central roles in “OMG” and “Special 26,” as in, he’s part of an ensemble here. Of course, you could argue that he’s not as big a star, but still…
MANK: I am not asking them to switch to these kinds of roles permanently. But I’m sure people would love to see the odd uncredited cameo or the surprise supporting role from a big actor… It’s just fun.
Pallavi Bhat: That’s just a different angle for a column. Sorry that this angle struck me first 🙂
Anita: I’ll leave that you experts 🙂
LikeLike
chhote saab
October 22, 2013
‘Oddly enough, Akshay Kumar has taken non-central roles in “OMG” and “Special 26,” as in, he’s part of an ensemble here. Of course, you could argue that he’s not as big a star, but still… ‘
I would still categorize Akshay Kumar as a big star but his stock has been going down of late, esp in the ‘big budget/ star ‘ productions like OUATIM 2, Boss. Infact his smaller films (like the ones you mentioned) are doing far better, so maybe he should keep doing it !
LikeLike
MANK
October 23, 2013
Akshay Kumar always had an erratic career. He has 5 or 6 films that flop at a trot , then his next 2,3 movies become hits. He does not have the consistency of an amir or SRK mainly because he does so many films a year and he doesn’t have the upmarket multiplex audience base that the other big stars have.
Also speaking about Kamalahaasan , he did a delightful supporting role in sati leelavati in which he was paired with kovai sarala and i am not sure but he did a cameo in magalir mattum as well. Of course both of them were his home productions. Similarly Rajni did a supporting part in valli which was his home production as well.
LikeLike
SR
October 23, 2013
Hugh Jackman has made other ‘non-hero’ films: try ‘Butter’ (was further than even ‘third fiddle’).
LikeLike
can
October 23, 2013
bad review you do, why are just blabbering about unnecessary things.
LikeLike
vijay
October 24, 2013
Actually Kamal himelf on several occasions when asked why he couldn’t do a movie together with Rajni(for KB say or more recently for Mani ratnam) gives the stock answer that a producer cannot afford both their salaries together. But then no one asks him the followup question “why cant you two slash it then?”Maybe that Kamal’s diplomatic way of answering it.
BR, forget Rajni/Kuselan, a new fucker on the block like Karthi doesn’t want to take risks and does crap like Alex Pandian which bombs anyway. You should have asked that filmmaker, if it is OK with him that stars want to play it safe and in the process they end up making a Rajapattai, Kutty, Saguni,Alex Pandian where the distributors end up losjng their shirts on a regular basis. Less than 10-15% of films released in a year make it to the superhit level at the BO, what kind of screwed up business model are these directors/producers/distributors endorsing? You get to hear about Cheran or Myskin’s travails in getting a A-list actor to play a part in their film and then they end up doing the part themselves wherein the viewer’s travails begin
LikeLike